Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Ka`u Coast Preservation Act, a bill directing the National Park Service to assess the feasibility of designating coastal lands on the Ka`u Coast of the island of Hawaii between Kapao`o Point and Kahuku Point as a unit of the National Park System. Late last year, the National Park Service issued a reconnaissance report that made a preliminary assessment of whether the Ka`u Coast would meet the National Park Service's demanding criteria as a resource of national significance. The reconnaissance survey concluded that ``based upon the significance of the resources in the study area, and the current integrity and intact condition of these resources, a preliminary finding of national significance and suitability can be concluded.'' The report goes on to recommend that Congress proceed with a full resource study of the area. Although under significant development pressure, the coastline of Ka`u is still largely unspoiled. The study area contains significant natural, geological, and archaeological features. The northern part of the study area is adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and contains a number of noteworthy geological features, including an ancient lava tube known as the Great Crack, which the National Park Service has expressed interest in acquiring in the past. The study area includes both black and green sand beaches as well as a significant number of endangered and threatened species, most notably the endangered hawksbill turtle (at least half of the Hawaiian population of this rare sea turtle nests within the study area), the threatened green sea turtle, the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, the endangered Hawaiian hawk, native bees, the endangered and very rare Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly (the largest population in the state), and a number of native endemic birds. Humpback whales and spinner dolphins also frequent the area. The Ka`u Coast also boasts some of the best remaining examples of native coastal vegetation in Hawaii. The archaeological resources related to ancient Hawaiian settlements within the study area are also very impressive. These include dwelling complexes, heiau (religious shrines), walls, fishing and canoe houses or sheds, burial sites, petroglyphs, water and salt collection sites, caves, and trails. The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail runs through the study area. The Ka`u Coast is a truly remarkable area: its combination of natural, archaeological, cultural, and recreational resources, as well as its spectacular viewscapes, are an important part of Hawaii's and our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. I believe a full feasibility study, which was recommended in the reconnaissance survey, will confirm that the area meets the National Park Services high standards as an area of national significance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which will help correct the unconscionable deficiencies exposed by the Washington Post at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. H.R. 1538 will improve the delivery of medical services to our wounded warriors who have done all that we have asked of them. We now must honor our commitment to them to care for them when they are injured. H.R. 1538 provides the basic services we would have expected for our wounded service personnel such as readily available case managers and advocates to assist incapacitated patients receive appropriate care, improved training of health care professionals and better monitoring of out-patients to ease the transition to the VA medical care system. The Walter Reed experience showed that we cannot rely on the current system to provide these basic services and care. I am particularly pleased with the attention we will finally pay to the mental injuries, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, that can be as crippling and incapacitating to our soldiers and veterans as physical injuries. When I spoke on House Concurrent Resolution 63 opposing the President's surge, I mentioned CPT Lisa Blackman, a clinical psychologist, who cared for soldiers who suffered devastating emotional and mental harm inflicted while serving in Iraq and chronicled their troubling and heart-breaking torment in the book, Operation Homecoming. These brave troops, who suffered severe physical as well as mental injuries, shamefully did not receive proper treatment after faithfully serving their country. H.R. 1538 properly recognizes the sacrifices our troops have made and provides the long overdue care and medical services our troops should properly expect and deserve from their government.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague for yielding time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007 and ask for my colleagues' support of the bill. The Act assists the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, DHHL, to provide opportunities for homeownership for low-income native Hawaiians. The bill in no way addresses the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians should be recognized as a sovereign entity akin to Alaska Natives or American Indians. During debate on this bill last Wednesday, no Member came to the floor to speak in opposition to the bill. In fact, the gentleman from Arizona, who managed the time, expressed support for the bill. Unfortunately, either during the debate or afterward, e-mails were sent to Members containing at least two erroneous assertions: first, that this bill is unconstitutional and, second, that this bill ``would confer on Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes.'' Opponents then compounded the error by citing the Rice v. Cayetano voting rights Supreme Court decision in support of their broad assertions. As to the first assertion, the constitutionality of any measure must be decided by the courts; and, clearly, the courts have not opined on the constitutionality of this bill. As to the second assertion, there is nothing in the bill that speaks to creating a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government akin to the relationship between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes. This bill, which promotes homeownership, a goal that all of us can support in bipartisan fashion, has been targeted for defeat by opponents who are misreading the bill as well as case law. I was a member of the Cayetano administration in Hawaii and sat in the Supreme Court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may interest some of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing the State of Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. The central issue in the Rice v. Cayetano case was the narrow question of whether the State of Hawaii could hold an election for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs where only Native Hawaiians could vote. In holding that the State could not so limit these elections, the majority opinion of the Court deliberately avoided the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians deserved the same right of self-determination granted to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority court decision did not call into question the trust relationship between the U.S. Government and the Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as unconstitutional. While the entire Hawaii congressional delegation, Hawaii's Governor, who happens to be a Republican, and the Hawaii legislature supports self-determination for Native Hawaiians, that is not the subject of the bill before us today. My colleague and I have introduced H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, also known as the Akaka bill. We can discuss the merits of self-determination for Native Hawaiians when and if the Congress considers that bill. The bill before us today provides assistance to a limited group of Native Hawaiians, those designated as beneficiaries under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. That bill, in recognition of the desperate poverty and displacement from the land of Native Hawaiians, established a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians, or those with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood, on lands in Hawaii designated for that purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 200,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land. This 1921 Act of Congress has never been challenged in the Supreme Court in the last 86 years. Despite the good intentions of the Congress, progress in meeting the goal of delivering land to Native Hawaiians was slow. Most of the Hawaiian homelands were located in areas far from jobs, and infrastructure like roads and utilities were nonexistent. Many individuals were on the waiting list for more than 30 years. The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 has provided the Department of Hawaiian Homelands with much-needed resources to expand opportunities for homeownership among low-income Native Hawaiians. Especially critical has been the ability to use these funds to develop the infrastructure that makes placing homes on these properties possible. Because the issue of Native Hawaiian rights as a native people lies at heart of the opposition of this bill, I would like to quote attorneys H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Viet Dinh, and Neal Katyal, who stated in a February, 2007, legal document prepared for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs: ``Congressional legislation dealing with indigenous groups is political, not racial, in character and therefore is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Rice v. Cayetano specifically declined to address whether `Native Hawaiians have a status like that of Indians in organized tribes' and `whether Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes'.'' As previously mentioned, we can and should have the debate on whether or not Native Hawaiians should enjoy the rights to self-determination given to other Native American groups when that bill is squarely before us in H.R. 505. Native Hawaiians deserve no less. This bill before us today simply provides Native Hawaiians who are eligible for homesteads under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act passed by Congress with the financing tools to allow them to realize for their families the dream of homeownership which otherwise would be available to very few of them. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mahalo nui loa.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 42nd Anniversary of Maui Economic Opportunity, Inc. (MEO), which was chartered as a community action agency on March 22, 1965, by Federal mandate under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The motto of MEO is ``Helping People. Changing Lives.'' And for these past 42 years, MEO has maintained a successful record of service by providing basic tools for living, for earning, for self-reliance, and for community involvement. MEO has initiated many important programs on the Valley Isle, which include specialized bus transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, and youth; Head Start; Enlace Hispano; community reintegration of prison former inmates; micro-enterprise loans; business education for low income entrepreneurs; employment training and placement programs; Low Income Home Energy Assistance; and energy conservation and home energy assistance for low-income persons. Most impressively, MEO is able to serve all three islands that comprise the County of Maui: Maui, Lanai, and Molokai. MEO is one of only a handful of agencies--out of over 1,000 community action agencies nationwide--selected by the National Community Action Partnership to receive an Agency of Excellence Award, highlighting superior administrative operations and program excellence. This translates into advocacy and outstanding services tailored to the needs of the Maui community. I would like to extend a sincere mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) to the staff of MEO for their hard work and dedication. May the next four decades prove to be as successful.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans do not support the President on Iraq. Yet he persists. Our caucus is united in our desire to end this war and bring our troops home safely despite our genuine disagreements as to how and when to bring this about. Within this disagreement, we reflect the broad spectrum of opinion in our country. Yet, as Members of Congress, we must take action to change the trajectory of this war, to come closer to the goal of ending the war. By setting deadlines for the President to meet his own articulated benchmarks, this bill places us firmly on that path. This bill is not perfect. There will be ``no'' votes because there are deadlines and ``no'' votes because the deadlines are too distant. The ``perfect'' bill that all of us can support will not materialize and we will be no closer to ending this war. At the same time, until their safe return, we must support our troops and provide them with the equipment and protective gear they need while they are in harm's way. With this bill, Congress for the first time since the war began is not handing the President a blank check or rubber stamping his failed conduct of this war. I strongly urge passage of this bill.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act, which reauthorizes the Hawaiian Home Lands Homeownership Act of 2000. The act assists the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, or DHHL, to provide opportunities for homeownership for low-income Native Hawaiians. In 1921, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act with the purpose of establishing a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians on lands in Hawaii designated for such purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 200,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land. With the passage of the Statehood Act of 1959, the control and administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was transferred to the newly formed State of Hawaii. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was created in 1960 to administer the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The mission of the Department is to ``manage the Hawaiian Home Lands trust effectively and to develop and deliver land to Native Hawaiians.'' Despite the good intentions of the Congress, progress of meeting the goal of delivering land to Native Hawaiians was slow. Most of the Hawaiian Home Lands were located in areas far from jobs, and infrastructure such as roads and utilities were nonexistent. Many individuals were on waiting lists for more than 30 years. The Hawaiian Home Lands Home Ownership Act of 2000 has provided the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands with much-needed resources to expand opportunities for home ownership among low-income Native Hawaiians. Especially critical has been the ability to use these funds to develop the infrastructure that makes placing homes on these properties possible. I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of this important program, and I thank the Chairs, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, for their leadership in bringing this bill to a vote.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 400, introduced by my colleague from Hawaii, the Honorable Neil Abercrombie, which seeks to prohibit war profiteering, I support H.R. 1362 which champions the same goals. At a time of war, when the lives of Americans are put at risk, when the limited resources of the Nation are being expended and when programs serving millions of Americans are being cut back, no corporation or person should ever be allowed to misuse, waste or misappropriate Federal tax dollars. Unfortunately, due to mismanagement, incompetence and sweetheart deals, and lack of oversight, certain U.S. corporations and their subsidiaries apparently have blatantly over-charged government agencies, engaged in wasteful practices and committed allegedly fraudulent acts that have resulted in the virtual disappearance of billions of dollars. Examples of American corporations padding expenses then charging an administrative fee on top of the overpriced goods and services have been well-documented. Documentaries such as ``Iraq for Sale'' chronicle a chilling story of unchecked waste, demoralization of our troops from shoddy services provided by contractors and shameless acts of corporate misconduct. It is shocking that, in some cases, it's all legal. Without reasonable restrictions on contractor spending and practices on no-bid and cost-plus contracts and lack of enforcement of existing law, there is no incentive to provide goods and services to the government at the least cost and with the greatest efficiency. Indeed, the current practices foster and encourage waste and corruption, as the dismal track record in Iraq of defense contractors demonstrate. Just one corporation, Halliburton, has disputed charges amounting to over a billion dollars. This bill minimizes the use of no-bid contracts, promote the use of cost effective fixed-price contracts and limit the duration of no-bid contracts, which must be awarded under emergency conditions, to one year. This bill allows the awarding of no-bid contracts which cannot be delayed but require re-bidding when the emergency has elapsed. Public disclosure of the reasons for using no-bid contracts and overcharging will promote transparency and expose improper contracting practices. Fixed price, rather than open-ended cost-plus, contracts will encourage efficiency and minimize unrestricted spending by contractors. H.R. 1362 will go a long way to curb unchecked abuse and overcharging, slipshod accounting practices and lack of accountability. It will give government procurement managers the authority to control wasteful and fraudulent contractor practices, as well as be governed by stricter ethical guidelines to regulate the procurement managers' own behavior. Until now, there has been no effective congressional oversight since the war began and no effective laws to rein in wasteful, corrupt and, in fact, unpatriotic behavior. Billions have been lost in this war, while critical programs in education, health, environment, alternate energy and other domestic needs have been unnecessarily slashed. This legislation will help correct this unacceptable situation. I commend Chairman Waxman and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for this important improvement in our Federal contracting laws.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, my amendment will add another allowable use of funds under section 103, Watershed Pilot Projects, to assist communities in developing integrated water resource plans for the coordinated management and protection of surface water, ground water and storm water resources on a watershed or subwatershed basis. The amendment does not add to the cost of the bill; it simply provides another option for communities in use of the grants funds. It is important that communities look at the inner relationship between each of these water systems when devising management and protection plans. Management of storm water can certainly have an impact on the quality of surface waters, and the quality of surface water has an effect on the quality and safety of ground water. This approach is very much in line with Hawaiian traditions of land management. The traditional Hawaiian land management unit, the ahupua'a, goes from the top of the mountain to the sea. Ancient Hawaiians understood that what happened on the mountain would affect resources at lower elevations, in coastal areas, and even in the ocean. The watershed model of natural resource management is a modern equivalent of the Hawaiian ahupua'a system. It is important that we move to a more holistic way of looking at how our water systems interact. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to provide communities with an opportunity to develop such integrated plans. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 720 and my strong opposition to the amendment that seeks to remove Davis-Bacon wage protections from the bill. Addressing the Nation's urgent wastewater infrastructure needs by strengthening and recapitalizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is critically important. Retaining the requirement that workers be paid the local prevailing wage will help ensure that these projects yield the greatest benefit to the communities they are meant to help. Davis-Bacon not only guarantees that workers receive a fair wage; it helps ensure the quality of the work because it removes the incentive for hiring less qualified workers for a job. Paying prevailing wages also means that businesses and workers in the community where the work is taking place have a fair shot at getting the job and are less likely to be undercut by contractors who bid lower but then cut corners. A well-built project at a fair price should be our goal--not the cheapest possible job where workers' qualifications and quality of work may be compromised. I want to congratulate Chairman Oberstar on moving this critical bill through the committee and to the floor in such a timely fashion. I am very proud to be a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to be able to tell my constituents that help in upgrading our wastewater systems is on the way.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I yield back the rest of my time.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, on the first of this month, I reintroduced the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act (H.R. 1287), which will provide for the expedited reunification of the families of our Filipino World War II veterans. This body has many times heard accounts of the bravery of the Filipino veterans: how they fought shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; how they sacrificed for the same just cause. For too long, we have ignored the promise we made to those men to provide benefits and care equal to that provided to our own soldiers. As the House prepares for debate on comprehensive immigration reform, let us remember the broken promises made to our Filipino World War II veterans and provide for a meaningful way to make amends by expediting the immigration petitions of their sons and daughters. I would like to submit into the Congressional Record an article that recently appeared in the Washington Post that humanizes the intent of my bill. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2007] Hope for Amends to Filipino Immigrants (By N.C. Aizenman) Amid the wrangling over immigration reform, virtually everyone in Congress appears to agree on one point: Filipino- born veterans who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II deserve a break. Denied the right to immigrate to the United States until 1990, they came hoping that their children could follow them here later, just as other groups have done. But the adult children have been required to wait twice as long--up to 16 years--as anyone else. With the veterans often too old and sick to travel home, many have died while waiting to be reunited with their families. Now, after several longtime backers have risen to key positions in Congress, Filipino American advocates are hopeful that legislation will be pushed through to exempt the veterans' children from the immigration delay. They also are optimistic about a potentially more controversial bill that would grant Filipino veterans military pensions. About 5,000 veterans in the United States would stand to benefit from a change in immigration provisions, and an additional 10,000 in the Philippines could be eligible for pensions. To many in the 2-million-strong Filipino American community, the issue represents a chance to cement their political identity in a nation where they have long felt invisible, even though Filipinos rank second, behind Mexicans, in the number of immigrants living in the United States. ``Historically, we Filipinos have always been looked down on as your little brown brothers--as these acquiescent people who would just accept anything Uncle Sam would do to them,'' said Jon Melegrito, communications director of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations. ``This is about asserting who we are as a people and how we served this country. . . . It's a call to action to stop acting like colonial slaves and to start acting like first-class citizens.'' The effort builds on an association with the United States that dates to 1898, when the United States acquired the Philippines from Spain after winning the Spanish-American War. Laws and discriminatory practices against all Asian immigrants kept Filipino numbers in the United States low through the first half of the 1900s. But in the Philippines, many residents were taught English and raised to think of themselves as something akin to Americans. Celestino Almeda, 90, a veteran who lives in Alexandria, remembered that the director of his elementary school in Manila led students in a pledge of allegiance to the American flag every morning. ``We also celebrated all the holidays: Washington's birthday, Armistice Day,'' Almeda said. ``In our mind, it was like America was our mother country.'' When Japan invaded the Philippines in 1941, more than 200,000 Filipinos joined Americans in waging a fierce resistance, enduring such horrors as the Bataan Death March and the grueling guerrilla campaign that followed. Technically, the Filipino fighters were under overall U.S. command. But within months of the Allied victory, Congress stripped most of them of their rights as foreign veterans of U.S. forces--including the opportunity to become U.S. citizens--on the grounds that the Philippines was about to be granted independence. Even so, the Philippines continued its close affiliation with the United States. Thousands of Filipinos joined the U.S. Navy, which until recently had major bases there. By 1970, there were more Filipinos in the U.S. Navy than in the Philippine Navy. And, after 1965, when Congress repealed the nationality quota system that had practically prohibited Asians from immigrating, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos streamed in. Ranging from unskilled workers and nannies to nurses and professionals who came in on occupational preference visas, the new arrivals immediately formed social, cultural and professional organizations. Before long, they were rising to prominent positions in government, unions and the military. Several won elected office, including in Prince George's County, where a sizable community settled. Yet when it came to turning their clout into political activism on behalf of Filipino American causes, many of the immigrants hesitated, said Bing Cardenas Branigin, 50, a former regional chairman of the Filipino American federation. ``There was this sense that you shouldn't make trouble, that you shouldn't contradict the government,'' she said. ``You should just pay your taxes and send your kids to school and keep quiet.'' That began to change in the mid-1970s when anger spread over the repressive policies of the Filipino president, Ferdinand Marcos. As much as their opposition to Marcos galvanized the Filipino American community, it also caused rifts with those who supported Marcos. After Marcos was ousted, community leaders looked to refocus their newfound energy on a more unifying issue. The fight for veterans' equity was a natural choice. Since then, the veterans have won some of the benefits they lost after the war. Most notably, in 1990, Congress granted Filipino World War II veterans the same opportunity to naturalize offered to all other foreign nationals who served in the U.S. armed forces. But the Filipino veterans remain ineligible for a military pension, forcing many of the more than 24,000 elderly veterans who became U.S. citizens after 1990 to live off food stamps and Supplemental Security Income payments. Joaquin Tejada, 84, a former guerrilla fighter who survived two years resisting the Japanese from jungle hideouts, said he now struggles to get by with his $545 monthly SSI check. The rent for the two-bedroom apartment he shares with another Filipino World War II veteran in Columbia Heights takes $275. ``By the end of the month, it's hard to buy even basic food,'' said Tejada, who proudly sported an American flag tie during an interview. Then there is the l6-year wait veterans face if they wish to bring over their adult children, an unintended consequence of the 1965 law lifting the quotas that had prevented most Asians from immigrating. In their place, Congress introduced a complicated system meant to offer every country the same number of family reunification visas. But because Filipino applicants far outnumber the yearly slots allotted to them, they face the longest delays--22 years to sponsor an adult brother or sister, for instance, compared with 11 years for applicants of most other nationalities. Candida Romulo, 72, said she and her husband, Bayani, a veteran who became a lawyer in Manila, would not have naturalized and moved to Oxon Hill had they known that the wait to sponsor their grown children would be so long. ``We did it because we wanted to give them the opportunities of living in this country. It was going to be our gift to them,'' Romulo said during an interview in a living room crammed with photographs of her four children. Soon after the couple's arrival, Bayani developed a medical condition requiring frequent dialysis, making visits to the Philippines impossible. Because of their pending residency applications, his children were unable to get visas to visit him. When Bayani suffered a severe stroke in September, his eldest son wasn't able to relay his final words to his father over the phone before he died. ``The receiver couldn't reach his bed in the ICU,'' Candida Romulo said. ``So I told my husband, `Your son says that he loves you very much and that he's so proud that you are his father.' My husband couldn't speak, but I could tell that he understood, because there were tears in his eyes.'' Now Romulo worries that her son may never gain entry to the United States, because if a sponsor dies while the visa application is pending, there is a chance that the application will be annulled. But she said she is still praying that Congress will pass the legislation for the sake of those veterans who remain alive. ``If that happens, I know my husband will be very happy about it, even if he is already in heaven,'' she said.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, a companion to Senator Akaka's bill of the same name, which will provide for the expedited reunification of the families of our Filipino World War II veterans. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by Representatives Neil Abercrombie, Bob Filner, Michael Honda, Madeleine Bordallo, Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, Jim McDermott, Darrell Issa, Sam Farr, Al Green, Raul Grijalva, and Phil Hare. As you know, Filipino veterans are those that honorably answered the call of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served alongside our armed forces during World War II. They fought shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; they sacrificed for the same just cause. We made a promise to provide full veterans' benefits to those who served with our troops. And while we have recently made appreciable progress toward fulfilling that long-ignored promise, we have not yet achieved the full equity that the Filipino veterans deserve. In 1990, the Congress recognized the courage and commitment of the Filipino World War II veterans by providing them with a waiver from certain naturalization requirements. Many veterans thereafter became proud United States citizens and residents of our country. However, allowances were not made for their children and many have been waiting decades for petition approval. The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act would allow for the further recognition of the service of the veterans by granting their children a special immigration status that would allow them to immigrate to the United States and be reunified with their aging parents. It is important to note that the Filipino soldiers who fought under the command of General Douglas MacArthur at this critical time in our Nation's history represent a unique category. These soldiers were members of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. They were led to believe that at the end of the conflict they would be treated the same as American soldiers. It took more than 60 years to begin to make good on our commitment. The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act recognizes the special circumstances of this group of soldiers. I would like to submit into the record an editorial from the Honolulu Advertiser that supports the expedited reunification of these families as a meaningful way to make amends for the injustice experienced by these brave soldiers. As the editorial frankly states, ``Reuniting these men with their children is not only the fair thing for the U.S. government to do, it's the least it could do.'' Last year, my home State of Hawaii celebrated the 100th anniversary of the first Filipino immigrants to arrive on U.S. soil. We are exceptionally proud of the accomplishments of our Filipino community and confident that the next 100 years will be as successful. It is unfortunate that prospective family-based immigration applicants from the Philippines face substantial, often decades-long, waits for visas. In Honolulu, I recently had a meeting with a group of Filipino veterans from my district. I listened to many heartbreaking stories of sons and daughters waiting patiently in the Philippines with the hope that one day they will be able to come to the United States to care for their aging parents. The need to complete these families of our veterans is great. As our Filipino veterans are entering the sunset years of their lives, Congress is running out of time to fulfill our obligations to them. I look forward to working with my colleagues by providing for the reunification of our Filipino World War II veterans with their families. [From the Honolulu Advertiser, Feb. 25, 2007] Filipino Vets' Families Deserve Special Status Filipino veterans, who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II, have waited far too long--more than 60 years-- to get what's due them. While they still seek full pension benefits from Congress, another key measure would give them something that could be more important in their senior years: family reunification. Senate Bill 671, recently introduced by U.S. Sens. Dan Akaka and Daniel Inouye, grants special immigrant status to the children of naturalized Filipino veterans, enabling them to move up in the visa backlog that has had some family members waiting for entry to the U.S. for nearly 20 years. Indeed, this solution is not a simple one. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, visa policies were rightly revamped and strictly enforced. To expedite the process for these family members and not others merits concern. But let's look at the bigger picture: An estimated 200,000 Filipinos were drafted in 1941 to fight under Gen. Douglas MacArthur when war broke out. The men were promised citizenship and benefits by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. But Congress reneged on the promise with the Rescission Act of 1946. Not until 1990 did the Immigration Act allow these men citizenship. But they have yet to receive the same benefits as their GI counterparts, and the change in immigration law did not extend the same rights to the veterans' sons and daughters. Today, there are an estimated 5,000 Filipino veterans in Hawai'i and the Mainland, according to the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, but most are well into their 80s and 90s--and their number is quickly dwindling. Reuniting these men with their children is not only the fair thing for the U.S. government to do, it's the least it could do. And Congress shouldn't stop there. The aging veterans deserve to see the final piece in their struggle for equity: the granting of full pension benefits that could mean $200 a month per veteran. For these men, it's more than just a paycheck--it's a promise.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chairman, I rise to strongly support this bill. The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize, to bargain for better working conditions, fair wages and real benefits. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to intimidation and harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents. Even after overcoming these obstacles and successfully organizing, many workers do not see the benefits of unionization for years because employers can drag their feet as in signing a first contract. The system destined to protect workers' rights needs fixes, and the Employee Free Choice Act is landmark legislation to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this resolution. The Iraq war has lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II and has cost the Nation hundreds of billions of dollars. We have lost over 3,000 of our finest men and women. Thousands more have been maimed and too many lives have been shattered. As Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said, this ``resolution will establish the first marker,'' the first step toward ending this nightmare. The war in Iraq is the moral issue of the day, and like all great moral issues, there are heartfelt disagreements on both sides of the aisle. But every second, minute, and hour that passes, lives are being lost in Iraq and devastation continues with no end in sight. We owe it to all the brave men and women who have already sacrificed so much, over 3,000 of them who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to steer our country on a course that will bring our troops home safely, take care of them and their families when they return and end this war. Despite 4 years and deadly losses, according to Foreign Policy Magazine's recent survey of over 100 top national security experts, 86 percent say the world is more dangerous for the U.S., and, most troubling, 87 percent believe that the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on the war on terror. Other surveys have reached similar conclusions. Yet the President now wants another $235 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan to add to the $427 billion for the war already approved. In this debate, we should listen in particular to the words of Americans who actually served in the war. I am honored to serve in this Congress with new Members Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Patrick Murphy, also of Pennsylvania, all veterans of the Iraq war. Their eloquent and strong voices of firsthand experience add immeasurably to this debate. There are also people like Captain Lisa Blackman, a clinical psychologist who cared for soldiers in Qatar. As we become increasingly aware of the thousands of soldiers to emerge from firefights or attacks physically unscathed but with substantial emotional damage, Captain Blackman's experience in regularly tending to these soldiers provides further troubling insights into this devastating war. In a message chronicled in the book Operation Homecoming, Dr. Blackburn wrote of how her patients responded to questions she asked them about their symptoms. She didn't get the expected reactions. They were unexpressive. But when she asked them, ``Have you ever been in combat?'' they became unglued and burst into tears. As she described it, ``[W]hen I say burst, I mean splatter, tears running . . . sobbing for minutes on end, unable to speak, flat-out grief . . . '' She observed, ``No one ever feels like they are doing enough. If you are in a safe location, you feel guilty that your friends are getting shot at and you aren't. If you are getting shot at, you feel guilty if your buddy gets hit and you don't. If you get shot at but don't die, you feel guilty that you lived, and more guilty if you get to go home and your friends have to stay behind. I have not seen one person out here who didn't [check off] `increased guilt' on our intake form.'' Indeed, every soldier who saw combat or the results of combat has likely suffered hidden but disturbing psychological harm to some extent. In spite of this, the Veterans Administration has been deprived of the critical funds necessary for the rehabilitation of these brave troops. The President, who continues to send more and more troops into the war on the one hand, has sought to reduce spending for medical services for these same troops on the other. His budget reduces spending for VA over the next 3 years. Our troops are not the only ones suffering from the policies of this administration. All Americans who now oppose the war 2-1 are impacted by the massive cuts in or complete elimination of important social, health, education and environmental programs. The cost of this war keeps going up, adding to our national debt. The interest on our debt alone is more than we devote to the education of our children, care of our veterans, and for the administration of justice combined. This body must go on record in united and solid opposition to the escalation of the war and in complete support of our soldiers and veterans. We must be resolute in our efforts to bring an end to this quagmire. As Speaker Pelosi said, ``Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people. No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq.'

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of House Resolution 109. Today we will be taking action on two related measures, House Resolution 122, earlier debated, and this resolution. One of the lowest points in American history occurred 65 years ago when the Constitution and civil rights of 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry were trampled upon by their own government. Under the cloud of war, hysteria, false rumors and racial bigotry fueled official misconduct that led to the uprooting of innocent aliens and citizens alike in one of the worst wholesale infringements of constitutional rights in the 20th century. As a consequence, thousands of persons of Japanese ancestry were forced by their own government to dispose of their property, businesses, farms and possessions for pennies on the dollar, if anything at all. Families were split up and sent to different relocation camps. Educations were disrupted, and careers abruptly terminated on only a few days' notice. Wholesale violations of basic constitutional rights were committed in the name of national security. Yet not a single act of sedition or espionage by any of the evacuees was ever proven in any court of law. To the contrary, the historic exploits of AJA in the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team in Europe and the MIS in the Pacific and Asia proved that patriotism was not skin deep. The psychological and emotional pain of this experience was so deep that many evacuees never talked about their experiences for decades. Many who were directly affected by the order live and work among us still. A member of my own congressional staff, my deputy chief of staff, Susan Kodani, was born in the Manzanar Relocation Camp. Her family was then relocated to Michigan, ironically to permit her college-educated father to assist in the war effort. Many more, of course, suffered personal losses and tragedies more traumatic and devastating. By recognizing the historic significance of the Pinedale Assembly Center and by observing the Day of Remembrance as called for in earlier House Resolution 122, we say to the Nation and our fellow citizens that America can never forget this horrible tragedy. While it directly affected one segment of our population, the ramifications to all Americans are profound and no less relevant today as we wage war in Iraq. The constitutional rights of all Americans are in jeopardy if any group of citizens can be persecuted without legal justification. We must all stand vigilant and alert for any attempt by any group, whether a small power clique or the majority of Americans, to overstep the bounds of the law for momentary expediency or even for claims of national security during war. The protection of our constitutional rights of all of our citizens require continued vigilance from all of us.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 808, establishing the Department of Peace and Nonviolence. At a time when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, which the majority of the American public no longer supports, there is a growing call for a diplomatic and political, in other words, a peaceful resolution to this conflict. The establishment of the Department of Peace and Nonviolence, with its emphasis on education and dispute resolution through peaceful means, sends a clear message to our citizens and to the rest of the world that our country recognizes and values the peaceful resolution of conflicts and differences and that these methods should be emphasized to resolve conflicts at both the individual and national levels. The Department of Peace is not a new idea. My esteemed and highly respected predecessor from the State of Hawaii, first Representative and then Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, proposed a similar institution 30 years ago as the Vietnam war waged on. After three decades of unresolved conflicts, worsening international relations, and seemingly endless wars around the world, the time has come to bring this great idea to life. I fully support H.R. 808.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 323, the Seasoned Customer CTR Exemption Act. This bill eliminates a no-longer- necessary regulatory requirement which increases the costs of doing business for hundreds of financial institutions and their customers who ultimately bear the cost of this regulation. H.R. 323 provides long overdue relief for our financial institutions from the requirement of keeping records and filing reports called Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) to the Treasury Department for any financial transaction valued in excess of $10,000.00. While the original purpose of the regulation, to identify suspected money laundering activities, was a commendable tool for Federal prosecutors, its utility has been adequately replaced since 1996 by the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports required by Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTRs are no longer the primary tool to identify suspected money laundering activities but banks must still file these reports, unless an exemption is given by the Department to certain ``qualified business customers.'' The exemption procedures, however, have been found to be difficult to understand, cumbersome and still required the banks to obtain annual renewals. This legislation will allow by statute the Treasury Department to issue regulations that would permit depository institutions to apply for an exemption from the requirement to file CTRs on a ``qualified customer.'' The bill defines a qualified customer as any business organized or incorporated under state or federal law that has maintained a deposit account with the institution for at least twelve months and engaged in multiple currency transactions otherwise subject to the reporting requirement. An estimated 30 percent of the 12 million CTRs received by the Treasury Department were filed on recurring customer transactions that were eligible for exemption under the current law. This bill will relieve financial institutions of the costly and unnecessary requirement to file CTRs in those instances and allow them to file a one-time notice of exemption for each qualified customer. The Department will still be permitted where justified to suspend, reject or revoke such exemption notices to assure that it performs its legal duties. It also requires the department to report back within 3 years of enactment on the effects of the bill. This bill is an example of Congress taking appropriate action after reviewing a regulatory requirement that made sense when first enacted but which no longer is needed. Too often, these burdensome requirements continue on the books to the detriment of our business community. Congress should continue to work with our business community to identity other instances of unnecessary regulations and requirements so that appropriate action can be taken.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I just wanted to make a comment about what you just said. You know, there is rhetoric, and then there is action. So while we had hours and hours of debate on all of these bills that we dealt with in the first 100 hours, when it came down to action, so many of the Republicans voted with us. So as the saying goes, ``Where's the beef?'' And frankly, I just want to share with my colleagues from the majority- making class, of which I am very proud, there was an article written in a local newspaper back home about me and how I am doing here, and they quoted a professor from University of Pennsylvania, a political science professor. I don't know why they asked somebody from the University of Pennsylvania. But he teaches a class on how Congress works. And he said, basically, freshmen are hardly ever seen and they are never heard from. Well, nothing could be further from the truth in our class. Not only were we seen, but we were heard from. We were encouraged to speak out. And I think every single one of us had an opportunity to speak on all of these bills, as I certainly did. And so I came here because I really wanted to be responsive to the American people. And as the New York Times only yesterday said, that the House has now approved legislation directly addressing public concerns. And I think that is why we feel really gratified to have been a part of this historic session and to be reminded that prior Congresses, the 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th Congresses in the month of January, were taking a break. And we didn't.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, which is being introduced today by Senators Akaka and Inouye in the Senate and by Congressman Abercrombie and me in the House. The central purpose of the bill is to extend the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance provided to the other indigenous peoples of the United States--American Indians and Alaskan Natives--to Native Hawaiians. In addition, the bill establishes an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and establishes a federal interagency working group. The United States Congress has a long history of treating Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people. The special relationship Native Hawaiians have with the Federal Government is evidenced by the more than 160 statutes Congress has passed over the years to address the needs of the Native Hawaiian people. Nonetheless, the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court decision highlighted the need to clarify the authority of Congress to deal with Hawaii's indigenous people on a government-to- government basis under the U.S. Constitution's Indian Commerce Clause. I attended the Rice v. Cayetano hearing at the Supreme Court while I was serving as Hawaii's lieutenant governor. I wanted to hear first hand where the Justices were on the question of whether Hawaiians are indigenous people. Clearly, there was a lack of understanding on this point, which resulted in an unfavorable decision in the case. It is important to note that the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka bill, enjoys wide support in the State of Hawaii. As demonstrated by the introduction of these bills, the entire Congressional delegation supports the bill. Hawaii's Republican governor also supports the bill, as do the majority of elected officials in the State. Today is the 114th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is fitting that we come together on this day to pledge to restore to the Native Hawaiian people the inherent right of self-determination our Nation has granted to the other indigenous peoples of our Nation.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5. As a first generation immigrant who came to the United States speaking no English, education was a great equalizer for me, which is why this bill is of particular importance to me. Access to education is critical, but college costs are so high that individuals and families are being priced out of the opportunity. I worked to put myself through college and law school, but I couldn't have done it without student loans. It took me 15 years to pay those loans back, but I was glad to have them. Today we have an opportunity to do something concrete, something real, to help make college more affordable and accessible. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Education should be the great equalizer, but that can happen only when every qualified student has the opportunity to pursue it. Mahalo.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4. Talk about an all-American concept, using our purchasing power to lower our costs, something big companies do all the time. This is why I am so pleased that one of the first pieces of legislation before us will help our seniors, our kapuna, as we say in Hawaii, lower their prescription drug costs. I am proud to say that in 2002 Hawaii enacted a law creating a similar program to allow negotiating for lower prescription drug costs. Thousands of American families spent countless hours studying the Medicare part D process. My family was one of those. I sat with my 82- year-old mother as we worked our way through the confusing plans. Unfortunately, many of the families' efforts were not rewarded with the desired outcome, affordable prescription drugs. America can do better for our seniors. By giving Medicare negotiating authority, we will take an important step in the right direction. Mahalo.